To what extent does democracy in Britain depend on individuals in society obeying the decisions of elected politicians?

Britain has been forever synonymous with democracy. It is something in which allows an individual in society to have a sense of freedom, and chose who they wish to make the key decisions in our country. Politicians are elected by the individuals in society and it is their job to then govern the country and keep it running sufficiently, making decisions in which will affect us all, which must then be obeyed. Democracy carries both advantages and disadvantages which I will look at closely in this essay. I will also be looking at why it is important that the individuals in society obey the decisions of elected politicians, and what happens if they do not. Democracy is something which “helps strengthen the community and social solidarity by giving all people a stake in society by virtue of having a voice in its decision-making process” (Heywood 2000). In simple terms, this means that democracy is put in place in order to allow freedom, and this keeps those in society happy, or at least it should. Those who fulfil a certain criteria (British national, over the age of 18, and registered to vote) have a personal choice as to who they want to chose to stand above all else and appear alongside those who govern our country. This freedom of choice gives citizens a stake in society; it means that voting is fair and that at the end when the dust has settled there can be no complaints, or at least this is the theory. Those that have been placed in charge would have received a majority of the votes (even if it is just 51% of the votes), they have earned a right to be there, and therefore individuals should obey these decisions. This means that democracy works in favour of not only politicians, but for individuals alike in society. As one time President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln puts it; democracy is “government of the people, by the people and for the people” (1865). Breaking this quote down, Lincoln highlights the three main segments of democracy. It involves political power and influence, “government of the people”, suggesting that an element of power is needed in order to control the people. It is also “by the people”, the everyday citizens in society who have a say in what goes on in the country. The final part of Lincolns Gettysburg Address 1865, claims that democracy is “for the people”, this to me suggests that democracy rules in the public interest. This interesting point made by Lincoln on those in charge carrying a certain degree of power and influence is something that politicians crave to have. Power is “the general ability to influence others, which a politician may carry” (Goodwin 2007). Without power, politicians are no different to any other individual in society; with this power they can begin to influence individuals. For example, Margaret Thatcher in 1971 decided to place a ban on free milk in schools for children over the age of 7. The post-war Labour government introduced a scheme to give a free quarter-pint milk ‘ration’ to every primary school pupil, when the Conservatives were re-elected in 1970, Thatcher become schools minister and introduced a charge for this milk ration. This is a close example of how power can give politicians the opportunity to change things. Margaret Thatcher would be criticised by most during her time in charge, even by those who voted her in. This is an example of how democracy can go wrong, the individuals in society had seen her fit to be in charge, yet once she was in charge she caused controversy, which would see her reign eventually end as Prime Minister in 1990.This goes to show that the public do not always necessarily obey leaders, and this continued during Margaret Thatcher’s infamous reign as Prime Minister of Britain. Thatcher carried the same authority of any prime minister; the ‘legal-rational’ authority meant that she was in a position to make the big decisions in the country. In 1990, the year Thatcher’s reign came to an end, Britain was facing mass protests over poll taxes, there was a series of mass disturbances across Britain, the biggest of which taking part in London, or more precisely, in Trafalgar Square, this is why the riots are known to many now as the ‘Battle of Trafalgar’. These riots came about when the Conservatives, led by Thatcher, introduced ‘Community Charge’ which is commonly known now as Poll Tax. It provided a single ‘flat-rate capital tax’ on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority. This example goes to show that democracy can go wrong, so wrong in fact that it causes mass rioting across the country. Margaret Thatcher during her 11 year reign in charge provided some perfect examples of how democracy can and did go wrong.These are not the only negative points democracy can carry however. “Democracy can result in dictatorship and repression” (King & Kendall 2004) this in simple terms means that an individual rules above all else, meaning that the values and beliefs they carry may not be reflected by the individuals in society, even those who may have made the decision to elect them. This clash in values and beliefs is something which will affect democracy, and may leave the individuals in society rebelling against it, as seen in the 1990 tax riots. On the whole however the positives towards democracy outweigh the negative points, such as for example, it defends the freedom of the people, ensuring that power is constrained and that it is subject to popular consent. It also strengthens the community as they have a say in its decision making process. These two points go to show that politicians are in charge for a reason, they have been seen fit for the purpose of making decisions and surely then the individuals in society should respect any decisions made. The fact that politicians know they have to win votes means that they may deceive individuals; this is a point that is touched on in A. Downs’s journal, Political Economy (1957): This hypothesis implies that, in a democracy, the government always acts so as to maximize the number of votes it will receive. In effect, it is an entrepreneur selling policies for votes instead of products for money. Furthermore, it must compete for votes with other parties, just as two or more oligopolists compete for sales in a market. Government maximizes social welfare (assuming this process can be defined) depending upon how the competitive struggle for power influences its behaviour. Here Downs is comparing politicians with entrepreneurs’ in such a way that they “sell policies for votes” instead of “products for money”. Basically Downs is saying here that politicians will tell individuals what they want to be told in order to receive their votes. Votes are what get them into power, and without sufficient votes, they simple will not become elected. Downs also touches on how power can influence behaviour which is a very interesting point, if a politician has power then simply, they are in charge of what happens, without power, their behaviour will be significantly different. Downs makes a clear argument within his journal about how this power can interfere with freedom. Freedom is the “ability to think or act as one this can show us exactly what was meant when wishes” (Heywood 2000). So with this in mind, politicians know that there is a fine line between introducing new rules & regulations, and between interfering with individual’s freedom. This is something in which Henry Richardson discusses in his book, Democratic Autonomy in which he mentions how “Government action comes under a burden of legitimation because it impinges on freedom” (2002). Taking this into account, government cannot for example introduce new legislation which bans individuals in society from wearing certain coloured clothing in public, it just wouldn’t work, and we would have similar scenes to those in 1990 in Thatcher’s infamous reign. Richardson makes another important point in the journal when he looks at how “Freedom is implicated when changes in options significantly impinge on what individuals are permitted or required to do”. One of the biggest legislation introduced in my lifetime was the smoking ban which was introduced in 2007. Initially this ban, which meant smokers could no longer smoke indoors or in public places, left them outraged. Arguments still arise over the decision to introduce these new rules to our country, but it certainly changes what “individuals are permitted or required to do”, and simply sometimes big changes in the way we think and act have to be made whether we like it or not. Overall, after looking at democracy through the years and all the positive and negative points it brings with it, I have come to my own conclusion. To reach my conclusion I simply have to look at the present time where the Liberal Democrats along with the Conservatives, who are currently in charge of our government and make the key decisions, had come into power at a time when the economy was in a crisis, and it was their job to get it back up and running again. In order to do so they knew we would have to start cutting jobs, something which obviously did not go down well with the individuals in society. The Liberal Democrats claimed in their manifesto earlier this year that they are "committed to setting out the tough choices we are prepared to take so that we can balance the country’s books" (2010). Now this links in perfectly with the original question of how democracy depends on the individuals in society in Britain obeying the decisions of elected politicians. The countries politicians have been elected by the majority of individuals in the society and they have now laid out what needs to be done, and it is our duty as members of the country to do what has been asked. Without democracy, I can only imagine what state not only Britain, but the world would be in today. It is certainly needed for the world to operate as it does.